Explaining About Others Behavior - Essay Example

EXPLAINING ABOUT OTHERS’ BEHAVIOR By Location Introduction Our attribution or explanation for other people’sbehavior influences how one will address them. According to the context of social psychology research, people make several errors when thinking about the behaviors of their colleagues. In psychology, there is a type of attribution bias also known as attribution bias. Attribution bias is a type of cognitive bias referring to systematic errors, which people make when evaluating or trying to find reasons for other people’s behavior (Baron & Branscombe 2012 P. 120). People make constant attributions regarding the reasons behind other people’s behavior. However, these attributions do not result to accurate reactions.Instead of acting as objective perceivers, human beings constantly make perceptual errors that result to biased interpretations of other people’s social world. The following discussion analyses the types of errors people make when they think about the behaviors of others and how to avoid such errors (Baron & Branscombe 2012 P.124). People make attribution biases on daily basis, and therefore, this is an important social psychology topic to study. For example, whenever a driver of a public vehicle cuts passengers off, the passengers in most cases attribute blame, claiming that the driver is driving recklessness (for example, “what a jerk”), instead of considering the situational circumstances (for example, “maybe they were in a rush and did not notice me”). Additionally, there are various types of errors made by people when judging behaviors of other people (Heyman & Dweck 2008, P.22). These errors include hostile attribution error, actor-observer error, and fundamental attribution error. Each of these errors, explains a certain tendency that human beings exhibit when thinking about other people’s behaviors. Social psychological researches continue to examine why and how people exhibit error based interpretations on social information (Heyman & Dweck 2008, P. 24). There are many types of attribution errors, which current researchers have identified, and recent social, psychological research on these biases examines how such errors subsequently affect behavior and emotion of other people (Bull & Vine 2003, P. 45). Types of errors people make when reasoning about the behavior of other people Social psychological researches have identified a number of different attribution errors all of which give a description of ways in which we portray biased interpretations about others’ behaviors (Heyman & Dweck 2008, P. 27). Fundamental attribution error The fundamental attribution error is bias people make when explaining the behavior of others.Accordingly, this error is common and whenever people make certain attributions about others’ actions, they put more emphasis on the dispositional factors, and therefore ignoring the influences of situational factors (Baron & Branscombe 2012, P. 127).For instance, when a coworker bumps into another person while hurrying to attend a meeting, we tend to explain such behaviors as hastiness or carelessness of the coworker, instead of considering that such a coworker was running late to attend a meeting. Psychologist Lee Rose proposed this type of error in the year 1970, resulting from his experiment with Edward E. Jones together with Victor Harris in the year 1967. In their study, they requested the participants to read different essays, whereby one essay articulated pro-Castro views while the other comprised of anti-Castro views (Heyman & Dweck 2008, P. 33). The readers when then requested to express their views towards the essays’ authors under two distinct conditions. To begin with, when they informed these participants that these authors chose their positions voluntarily towards Castro, they expressed positive attitudes towards the writer who chose anti-Castro (Heyman & Dweck 2008, P. 37). However, when the researchers informed the participants that the authors’ determinations were through tossing a coin, but not their own choice, the participants never ceased expressing their positive attitudes with the anti-Castro author. These results depicted that the participants avoided taking into account the situational factors when evaluating third party behavior, providing proof of what resulted inthe fundamental attribution error (Baron & Branscombe 2012, P. 133). Actor-observer error Actor-observer bias (actor-observer asymmetry) is a more detailed fundamental attribution error. According to the context of the actor - observer error, on top of emphasizing on dispositional explanations ofthe behavior of other people, we underrate dispositional explanations and value too highly on our own situational explanations (Porter & Brinke 2009, P. 35). For instance, a student who spends most of his or her time studying may explain his or her behavior, referencing the situational factors (for example, I am preparing for an exam). Whereas, other people will explain these behaviors valuing dispositional factors (for example, the student is hard working and ambitious). Edward E. Jones together with Richard E. Nisbett was the first researchers to propose this type of error in the year 1971 (Porter & Brinke 2009, P. 43). These researchersexplained, “People tend to explain their behaviors referring to situational factors, while observers tend to express these behaviors considering dispositional factors” (Baron & Branscombe 2012, P. 133). However, there are some controversies, which disagree with the theoretical founding of this type of error. In the year 2006, a meta-analysis book of all written case studies since the year 1971 was published whereby; the author concluded that Nisbett’s and Jones’ original explanation of actor-observer error did not hold. Whereas the two researchers proposed that observers and actors rely on dispositional and situational factors to explain behaviors, examining past researches show that such an assumption is flawed (Baron & Branscombe 2012, P. 137). Rather, examining past studies reveal that the way people explain behavior focuses on whether an action was or not intentional. Self-serving error This error refers to the tendency of people to think that people succeed due to their internal factors but fail due to external factors. This error explains why we credit other people’s success and deny any failure responsibility (Porter & Brinke 2009, P. 47). For instance, when a tennis player wins a match, people claim that he won because he is a good athlete. However, when he loses the match, people might argue that this happened because of unfair refereeing. The self-serving error refers to self-esteemed maintenance. This means that people feel better about themselves by rating credit for their successes and creating blames on external factors as the main cause of their failures. Researches indicate that an increase in self-threat leads to an increase in self-serving bias (Baron & Branscombe 2012, P. 140). Therefore, self-serving error functions as a mechanism for ego-protection, which helps people to cope with failures. Hostile attribution error Social psychology researchers define Hostile attribution bias (HAB) as an interpretive error whereby people exhibit a particular tendency to interpret ambiguous behaviors of other people as hostile, instead of benign (Esses & Webster 2008, P. 45). For instance, when a person witnesses to other people whispering, he or she assumes that they are discussing something about him or her. This individual makes a hostile attribution error, even though the behavior of the two was potentially benign (Bull & Vine 2003, P. 47). Additionally, social, psychological studies indicate there is a relationship between hostile attribution error and aggression (Baron & Branscombe 2012, P. 143). This means that people who interpret other people’s behavior has hostile also engage them in aggressive behavior. In social psychology, it is logical to refer attribution to the ways in which we infer the causes of behaviors or events. In real life circumstances, the attribution is something done daily by almost everybody, usually with no awareness of biases of processes that lead to people’s inferences. For instance, throughout the course of a normal day an individual probably makes several attributions on his of her behavior or behavior of other people around (Esses & Webster 2008, P. 47). For example, when a student gets a poor grade in his or her exams, such a student may start blaming the subject teaching for explaining the learning materials adequately. Such a student tries to dismiss the fact that she or he did not study well (Esses & Webster 2008, P. 50). However, when another student gets a higher grade in the same exam, others might argue that the student passed because of his luck, dismissing the fact that the student had excellent study habits. However, there are several ways that people should use and consider in order to avoid making the above-discussed errors. How to avoid making thinking errors Fundamental attribution error This is a common error in the society.The fundamental attribution error occurs when someone puts more emphasis on situational factors when something happens to him, but undervalues personality-based factors when something happens to others (Esses & Webster 2008, P. 54). Unfortunately, researchers have not yet come up with an agreed “best practices” to avoid falling into fundamental attribution error. However, the best method to avoid being a victim of this error is by remembering ones old adage, (putting yourself in others’ shoes). For example, if a beginner commits a mistake, it is good to remember that you were once a beginner and thus your inexperience, nervousness, or other factors influenced you to make similar errors as well (Baron & Branscombe 2012, P. 144). The Halo effect This is a type of attribution error whereby people judge on the competency or character of others depending on their general impression.People review this error as a type of social proof. The problem here occurs when these impressions turn out to be wrong because such judgments depend on superficial judgment, such a person looks attractive (Global Deception Research Team 2006, P. 13). The best alternative to overcome this attribution error is through isolation and engaging people toestablish appropriate actions.Researches show that attractive people spend shorter times in prison than unattractive people, hence they have similar crimes (Baron & Branscombe 2012, P. 146).To avoid this error, it is good to understand that attractiveness qualities do not always means that such a person is right. Naïve cynicism Naïve cynicism is another common type of attribution error that occurs even with the most trusted people. On average, people are more likely to assume that other people have an egocentric bias than themselves. Statistically speaking, this is not the right manner to judge other people’s behavior (Esses & Webster 2008, P. 58). The vital aspect to take into consideration about this type of error is that, the bias is more of an outlook on others’ behavior. Although circumstances normally play a vital role in others’ outlook around the world (people born in crowded or crime-hidden towns tend to have different views on others than those born in quiet suburb), but it is crucial to take into account that, the world consists of many people and that almost all people evaluate circumstances using a similar fashion. One should understand that people give credit where it is due and therefore, no one should think that others are more egocentric than him or her (Esses & Webster 2008, P. 59). In-group favoritism It is right to conclude that, most people favor only those who they belong to the same group. However, there is a lot more scaring about this type of error than we may realize. Individuals usually form groups from trivial distinctions (Esses & Webster 2008, P. 60). According to psychologist Henri Tajfel, people, places themselves into groups following meaningless choices (for example, making a choice of two painters they have never met), whereby these choices affect their decisions when it comes to the time of making real reward. This means that, people who choose a similar group, when it reaches the time to reward any participant, will favor those whom they are in the same group and discriminate others (Esses & Webster 2008, P. 61).This error can only be handled through envision of social interaction without forming any group. If someone was not from your side, will you still have the same feelings towards his or her actions? If someone, who belongs to the other side was on yours, would his actions seem different (Baron & Branscombe 2012, P. 147). It is important for us to consider these distinctions during evaluations of individual actions and the situation because they can influence us. Dunning-Kruger effect This effect insists that unskilled people are more likely to be victims of illusory superiority, by mistakenly rating themselves over average. Conversely, the highly competent people may have an inferiority feeling since they believe that everybody is able to their job. Lacking self-confidence is just the same as being overconfident (Esses & Webster 2008, P. 64). In order to avoid being victims of Dunning-Kruger effect, it is essential to note that “there is no nobility in being superior to others, nobility means being superior to oneself (Baron & Branscombe 2012, P. 148). In addition, one should focus on enhancing his or her performance and not worrying about the performance of fellow man. Conclusion In conclusion, people knowing or unknowingly make errors when thinking about the actionsof others. To avoid making these errors, it is good to put yourself inthe shoes of others (Global Deception Research Team 2006, P. 15). By thinking about what you would have done in the same situation will enable you identify the situational factors leading to such action, hence avoiding the commitment of thinking errors. Through application of the above discussed ways of avoiding thinking errors, attribution bias will remain to be a theme of the past. References Baron, R. A., & Branscombe, N. R 2012, Social Psychology (13th ed.). England: Pearson Education Ltd. Heyman, G. D.,&Dweck, C. S 2008, Children’s Thinking about Traits: Implications for Judgments of the Self and Others. Child Development, vol.64 (391-403) Porter, S., & Brinke, L 2009, Dangerous decisions: A theoretical framework for understanding how judges assess credibility in theCourtroom Department of Psychology, Dalhousie University, ova Scotia, Canada. Legal and Criminological Psychology vol.14 (119–134) Esses, V. M., & Webster, C. D 2008, Physical attractiveness, dangerousness, and the Canadian criminal codE, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 18 (1017–1031) Global Deception Research Team 2006, A world of lies, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 37 (60–74) Bull, R., & Vine, M 2003, Attractive people tell the truth: Can you believe it? Poster presented at the Annual Conference of the European Association of Psychology and Law, Edinburgh. Read More